No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 September 2011
For nearly forty years George of Laodicea (c. 290–359) played a significant role in the fourth-century Trinitarian controversy. Yet among scholars of the period his contribution has been understudied, underappreciated and misunderstood. This article aims to reconstruct George's career in a way that eliminates earlier distortions, corrects certain oft-repeated mistakes and includes frequently omitted evidence. It argues that George was one of the principal leaders of the Eusebian alliance in its last two decades. It also suggests that his leadership role in the Homoiousian alliance was more significant than is usually thought: he was the catalyst for its formation and emerged as its champion in the aftermath of the failed leadership of Basil of Ancyra.
1 For example, Apologia de fuga sua 1.1–3; 26.4, ed. Opitz, Hans-Georg, in Athanasius Werke, II/1: Die Apologien, Berlin 1935–41, 68–86Google Scholar. For reasons why Athanasius bore such animus toward George see p. 10 below.
2 What I mean by ‘Eusebian’ is described at pp. 669–70 below.
3 The use of the word ‘alliance’ in detailed at p. 669 below.
4 The usage of ‘pro-Nicene’ follows that of Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its legacy: an approach to fourth-century Trinitarian theology, Oxford 2004, 236–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 This was based on Athanasius, De fuga 26.3. See, for example, E. Venables, ‘Georgius (3)’, in William Smith and Henry Wace (eds), Dictionary of Christian biography, literature, sects and doctrines, London 1880, ii. 636–8 at p. 637, and Gummerus, Jaakko, Die homöusianische Partei bis zum Tode des Konstantius, Leipzig 1900, 31Google Scholar. However, Friedrich Loofs points out that the phrase actually refers to Narcissus of Neronias: ‘Georg von Laodicea’, in Albert Hauck (ed.), Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche, Leipzig 1899, vi. 539–41 at p. 539.
6 Modern historiography on George began in the seventeenth century; in this article reference will be made only to the most important studies since then and particularly to twentieth-century scholarship.
7 This is tentatively entitled ‘George of Laodicea: a theological reassessment’.
8 For my use of ‘alliance’ see DelCogliano, Mark, ‘Eusebian theologies of the Son as image of God’, Journal of Early Christian Studies xiv (2006), 459–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and ‘The Eusebian alliance: the case of Theodotus of Laodicea’, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum xii (2008), 250–66Google Scholar.
9 Idem, ‘Eusebian alliance’, 250.
10 See Ayres, Nicaea, 13; DelCogliano, ‘Eusebian theologies’, 480–3.
11 Gwynn, David M., The Eusebians: the polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the construction of the ‘Arian controversy’, Oxford 2007Google Scholar.
12 See DelCogliano, review this Journal lix (2008), 97–8Google Scholar.
13 For a definition of the category see Ayres, Nicaea, 52, and Lienhard, Joseph T., Contra Marcellum: Marcellus of Ancyra and fourth-century theology, Washington, DC 1999, 34–5Google Scholar. For work on the theological and ecclesio-political cohesiveness of the Eusebians see DelCogliano, ‘Eusebian theologies’ and ‘The Eusebian alliance’.
14 On Asterius' theology see Ayres, Nicaea, 53–4; Hanson, R. P. C., The search for the Christian doctrine of God: the Arian controversy, 318–381, Edinburgh 1988, 32–8Google Scholar; Lienhard, Contra Marcellum, 89–100; and Vinzent, Markus, Asterius von Kappadokien: die theologischen Fragmente, Leiden 1993Google Scholar.
15 On Eusebius' theology see Ayres, Nicaea, 58–60; Hanson, Search, 46–59; and Lienhard, Contra Marcellum, 104–35.
16 On Marcellus' theology see Ayres, Nicaea, 62–9; Hanson, Search, 217–35; Lienhard, Contra Marcellum, 49–68; and Vinzent, Markus, Markell von Ankyra: die Fragmente [und] der Brief an Julius von Rom, Leiden–New York–Cologne 1997Google Scholar. On Marcellus' career see Parvis, Sara, Marcellus of Ancyra and the lost years of the Arian controversy, 325–345, Oxford–New York 2006CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
17 Philostorgius, Historia ecclesiastica viii.17, ed. Joseph Bidez and Friedhelm Winkelmann, in Philostorgius: Kirchengeschichte, 3rd edn, GCS xxi, Berlin 1981; Theodoret, Haereticarum fabularum compendium i. 26, PG lxxxiii.
18 Athanasius, De synodis 17.5, Athanasius Werke, II/1, 231–78.
19 Urk. 12 = Dok. 6.
20 Urk. 13 = Dok. 7.
21 Loofs, ‘Georg von Laodicea’, 459, and ‘George of Laodicea’, in Samuel Macauley Jackson (ed.), The new Schaff-Herzog encyclopedia of religious knowledge, New York–London 1909, iv. 459, and Pierre Nautin, ‘Georges (46), évèque de Laodicée’, in Alfred Baudrillart (ed.), Dictionnaire d'histoire et géographie ecclésiastique, Paris 1984, xx. 629–30 at p. 629.
22 Examples are Venables, ‘Georgius (3)’, 637; Bardenhewer, Otto, ‘Georgius von Laodicea’, in his Geschichte der Altkirchlichen Literatur, Freiburg 1912, iii. 264–5 at p. 264Google Scholar; and Othmar Perler, ‘Georgios, bish. v. Laodicea’, in Michael Buchberger (ed.), Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche, Freiburg 1966, iv. 702–3 at p. 702.
23 Athanasius, De synodis 17.7; Socrates, HE ii.45.14, ed. Günther Christian Hansen with contributions by Manja Širinjan, in Sokrates: Kirchengeschichte, GCS n.s. i, Berlin 1995.
24 Nautin, ‘Georges (46)’, 629.
25 Loofs, ‘Georg von Laodicea’, 539.
26 Contra Venables, ‘Georgius (3)’, 637; Bardenhewer, ‘Georgius’, 264; Perler, ‘Georgios’, 702; Manilo Simonetti, ‘George of Laodicea’, in Angelo Di Berardino (ed.), Encyclopedia of the early Church, New York 1991, i. 343; G. Röwekamp, ‘George of Laodicea’, in Siegmar Döpp and Wilhelm Geerlings (eds), Dictionary of early Christian literature, New York 1998, 250; and Frederick W. Norris, ‘George of Laodicea (fourth century)’, in Everett Ferguson (ed.), Encyclopedia of early Christianity, 2nd edn, New York 1998, 460.
27 ‘George himself was deposed by Alexander because, among other things, he was revealed as impious (ὅτι δὲ καὶ ἀσεβὴς ἐϕάνη)’: De synodis 17.7, Athanasius Werke, II/1, 245; ‘George who as a presbyter was deposed because of his wickedness (διὰ τὴν κακίαν αὐτo
)’: De fuga 26.4, Athanasius Werke, II/1, 86.
28 De fuga 26.4.
29 Urk. 4b.2 = Dok. 2.2.2.
30 For the date see Hanson, Search, 136.
31 Urk. 16 = Dok. 18.
32 Athanasius, HA 4.2, Athanasius Werke, II/1, 183–230.
33 On the deposition of Eustathius of Antioch and its aftermath see Parvis, Marcellus, 101–10; Hanson, Search, 208–11; Barnes, Timothy D., Constantine and Eusebius, Cambridge–London 1981, 227–8Google Scholar; and DelCogliano, ‘Eusebian alliance’, 259–60.
34 Eusebius, Vita Constantini iii.2.2–3, ed. Heikel, Ivar A. and Winkelmann, Friedhelm, Eusebius Werke, I/1: Über das Leben Kaisers Konstantins; 2nd edn, GCS vii/1, Berlin 1991Google Scholar; Sozomen, HE ii.19.5–7, ed. Hansen, Günther Christian, in Sozomenus: Kirchengeschichte, GCS n.s. iv, Berlin 1995Google Scholar.
35 This identification is endorsed by Venables, ‘Georgius (3)’, 637; Loofs, ‘Georg von Laodicea’, 539; Loofs, ‘George of Laodicea’, 459; Bardenhewer, ‘Georgius’, 264; Perler, ‘Georgios’, 702; Nautin, ‘Georges (46)’, 629; Simonetti, ‘George’, 343; and Röwekamp, ‘George’, 250.
36 Parvis, Marcellus, 48–9.
37 Venables, ‘Georgius (3)’, 637; Loofs, ‘Georg von Laodicea’, 540; Gummerus, Die homöusianische Partei, 30; Loofs, ‘George of Laodicea’, 459; Bardenhewer, ‘Georgius’, 264.
38 See Parvis, Marcellus, 125–6, 258. Parvis estimates that around sixty bishops attended, twenty-six of whose names are known. See also Barnes, Timothy D., Athanasius and Constantius: theology and politics in the Constantinian empire, Cambridge 1993, 22Google Scholar, and Annik Martin, ‘Athanase et les Mélitiens’, in Charles Kannengiesser (ed.), Politique et théologie chez Athanase d'Alexandrie, Paris 1974, 31–61 at p. 51 n. 48.
39 On the date of the circular letter see Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 36.
40 Athanasius, Apologia secunda 8.3, Athanasius Werke, II/1, 87–168.
41 On Athanasius' label ‘Eusebian’ see pp. 669–70 above. Gwynn identifies George of Laodicea as a member of Athanasius' ‘Eusebians’, but reserves judgement on the specific character of his theology: The Eusebians, 111–13, 115, 123, 219.
42 DelCogliano, ‘Eusebian alliance’, 253–6.
43 Ibid. 256–62.
44 On this council see Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 23.
45 This conjecture is only offered by Du Pin, Louis Ellies, Nouvelle Bibliothèque des auteurs ecclesiastiques, Paris 1693, ii. 481–2 at p. 482Google Scholar, and Venables, ‘Georgius (3)’, 637.
46 Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 45–6.
47 Parvis, Marcellus, 156. See Socrates, HE ii.9, and Sozomen, HE iii.5. Both Socrates and Sozomen conflate the Antiochene council of winter 338/339 and the Dedication Council: Parvis, Marcellus, 156; Hanson, Search, 285 n. 32.
48 Sozomen, HE iii.5–6; Socrates, HE ii.9–10.
49 Sozomen, HE iii.6.
50 Socrates, HE ii.9; Sozomen, HE iii.6.
51 Sozomen, HE iii.6.5.
52 Cf. Socrates, HE ii.9. It is generally thought that Eusebius of Emesa died in early 359, since Paul was bishop of Emesa at the Council of Seleucia in September 359. See Epiphanius, Panarion lxxiii.26.3, ed. Karl Holl and Jürgen Dummer, in Epiphanius III : Panarion adversus haereses 65–80; De fide, 2nd edn, GCS xxxvii, Berlin 1985. David Woods suggests that Eusebius of Emesa is to be identified with Eusebius Pittacas, who was executed by Gallus Caesar in Antioch in 354: ‘Ammianus Marcellinus and Bishop Eusebius of Emesa’, JTS n.s. liv (2003), 585–91Google Scholar. Whenever the encomium was written, the historian Socrates used it for background information on Eusebius of Emesa: Buytaert, É. M., L'Héritage littéraire d'Eusèbe d'Émèse, Louvain 1949, 44–50Google Scholar.
53 See DelCogliano, ‘Eusebian alliance’, 256–62.
54 Dok. 41.8.
55 Sozomen, HE iii.5.10. For a discussion and list of the known attendees see Parvis, Marcellus, 163, 260.
56 Sozomen, HE iii.12; Athanasius, HA 17.3; Theodoret, HE ii.6, ed. Günther Christian Hansen, in Theodoretus Cyri: Kirchengeschichte, GCS n.s. v, Berlin 1998; Athanasius, Apologia secunda 36.6; 47.3; Hilary, Collectanea antiariana parisina B II.7, ed. Alfred Feder, in S. Hilarii pictaviensis opera, pars 4, CSEL lxv, Vienna 1916. See also Parvis, Marcellus, 221. On Serdica see Hanson, Search, 293–306; Ayres, Nicaea, 122–6; and John Behr, The way to Nicaea, Crestwood 2001, 79–81.
57 Hanson implies that George did not attend Serdica because he had just recently been ordained bishop of Laodicea, but this is mistaken: Search, 261.
58 Hilary, Collectanea antiariana parisina B II.7, and Athanasius, Apologia secunda 47.3, who is followed by Theodoret, HE ii.6.
59 Sozomen, HE vi.25.7; Socrates, HE ii.46. See DelCogliano, ‘Eusebian alliance’, 260–1.
60 Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 92.
61 Ibid. 90.
62 For a provocative reconstruction of the sources of Apollinarius' theology see Kelley McCarthy Spoerl, ‘Apollinarius and the first Nicene generation’, in Ronnie J. Rombs and Alexander Y. Hwang (eds), Tradition and the rule of faith in the early Church: essays in honor of Joseph T. Lienhard, S.J., Washington, DC 2010, 109–27.
63 See Sozomen, HE iv.8.4. The date of this council is contested. For the relevant literature see Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 98–9, 268 nn. 35, 37. He proposes a date of 349. , Thomas A. Kopecek proposes the year 347 or 348: A history of Neo-Arianism, Philadelphia 1979, 103–4Google Scholar.
64 Sozomen, HE iv.8.4.
65 Kopecek, History, 104.
66 On the complicated career of Paul of Constantinople see Hanson, Search, 279–84; Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 212–17; and Parvis, Marcellus, 200–6, 222.
67 Parvis, Marcellus, 200–6.
68 Hanson, Search, 283; Parvis, Marcellus, 206.
69 For example, Athanasius, HA 7; De fuga 3.6.
70 Hilary, Collectanea antiariana parisina A IV.13.
71 Historia acephala 1.2–3, ed. Annik Martin, in Histoire «Acéphale», SC cccxvii, Paris 1985. While the text names ‘Georgius’ without mentioning his see, Martin (p. 174 n. 10) identifies him as George of Laodicea. See also Hanson, Search, 282.
72 Athanasius, De fuga 1.1; 26.3–4. See also Socrates, HE ii.26.9, which is based on Athanasius. On Athanasius' third exile see Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 121–6, and Hanson, Search, 341–3. There is no need to posit an anti-Athanasian council in Antioch in 356 as does Kopecek, History, 134–6. See Jeffrey N. Steenson, ‘Basil of Ancyra and the course of Nicene orthodoxy’, unpubl. DPhil. diss. Oxford 1983, 114–15 n. 65.
73 Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius, 124.
74 Mistakenly believing that the Council of Antioch which elected George of Cappadocia as Athanasius' replacement occurred in 357, Nautin, ‘Georges (46)’, 629, suggests that Athanasius directed his Apologia de fuga sua against George, Narcissus and Leontius (see De fuga 1.1; 26.3–4) because they were the bishops responsible for Cappadocian George's election. While it is likely that all three did participate in this election, in actuality this council was likely held in the late 340s (see n. 63 above). It seems more likely that their recent accusations of cowardice rather than their election of George of Cappadocia explains the mention of them in Apologia de fuga sua.
75 Hilary, De synodis 11, PL x. 479–546. On this council see Hanson, Search, 343–7, and Ayres, Nicaea, 137–40.
76 Hanson, Search, 346–7.
77 ‘When the emperor was still residing in the West, it was announced that Leontius the bishop of Antioch had died. As that Church needed superintendence, Eudoxius asked the emperor if he could return to Syria. When permission was granted, he eagerly seized Antioch and took possession of the bishopric without the agreement of George the bishop of Laodicea and Mark of Arethusa, who were at that time the [most] notable of the bishops in Syria, or of the others to whom the episcopal consecration belonged [οἷς ἡ ξειροτονία διέφερε]’: Sozomen, HE iv.12.3–4, GCS n.s. iv, 154, lines 23–39. See also Socrates, HE ii.37.7–11. Nautin (‘Georges [46]’), 629, and Simonetti (‘George’, 343), erroneously interpret this passage as indicating that George himself aspired to the see of Antioch. But all it says is that Eudoxius ignored the traditional Antiochene procedures at his installation, an action that would have offended George, Mark and other Syrian bishops.
78 Sozomen, HE iv.12.4–7. On Aetius and Heteroousian theology see Kopecek, History; Ayres, Nicaea, 144–9; and Vaggione, Richard Paul, Eunomius of Cyzicus and the Nicene revolution, Oxford 2000Google Scholar.
79 See, for example, Vaggione, Eunomius, passim, and Ayres, Nicaea, 145. The term heteroousios was first used by the opponents of Heteroousian theology such as Athanasius in his De decretis and De synodis, and was later adopted by the historian Philostorgius to describe the theological position of his hero Eunomius: see especially HE iv.12.
80 For example, Aetius never uses this term in his Syntagmation nor Eunomius in his Apologia. Aetius likely used heteroousios prior to writing the Syntagmation since it appears in one of the six Heteroousian fragments recorded in the Homoiousian defence from the summer of 359: Epiphanius, Panarion lxxiii.21.4. On Aetius' authorship of these six fragments see Morales, Xavier, ‘Identification de l'auteur des citations néo-ariennes dans le Traité de Basile d'Ancyre’, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum xi (2008), 492–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
81 As Ayres notes, the subordinationist impulse in Homoian theology could be pushed even further to interpret Homoian ‘likeness’ as ‘indicating a fundamental distinction in essence’: Nicaea, 139. In addition, Eudoxius' promotion of Aetius ‘created the impression of a logical direction to the Homoian programme’: Nicaea, 139 n. 18. Ayres concludes his analysis of Eunomius' theology by saying that ‘These complexities help to reveal ever more clearly how the distinct theology of Eunomius was for many seen as the natural term of Homoian theology’ (p. 149).
82 Sozomen, HE iv.13.1.
83 The term homoiousios may have been in use before the formation of the alliance that bears this name since the Sirmium Confession of 357 condemned its usage. But we do not what or who prompted the framers of the Confession to issue that condemnation.
84 For example Gummerus, Die homöusianische Partei; Kopecek, History; Steenson, ‘Basil of Ancyra’; Hanson, Search, 348–71; and Ayres, Nicaea, 149–53. Ayres notes (p. 151) that this label ‘is misleading if it leads us to understand [Homoiousian] theology as focused around defending a compromise term for the relationship between the Father and Son’. Scholars continue to use ‘Homoiousian’ for lack of a better label and as preferable to other even more misleading names such as ‘Semiarian’. Epiphanius (Panarion lxxiii.1.5) first called the Homoiousians ‘Semiarians’ in order to tar the movement as a kind of ‘Arianism’. Some modern scholars have retained this label for George: Venables, ‘Georgius (3)’, 637; Norris, ‘George’, 460.
85 Only Cave, William, Scriptorum ecclesiasticorum historia literaria, Oxford 1740, i.208Google Scholar, calls George a ‘Homoiousian’ before Loofs, ‘Georg von Laodicea’, 539 and ‘George of Laodicea’, 459. After Loofs, virtually all scholars describe him thus.
86 George's decision to write to the bishops assembled at Ancyra was probably calculated to elicit a response from Basil who had been in conflict with Aetius since the early 350s: Kopecek, History, 111–12; Vaggione, Eunomius, 158–61.
87 Sozomen, HE iv.13.1–3. For a reference to this letter see Epiphanius, Panarion lxxiii.2.8.
88 Sozomen, HE iv.13.1.
89 Ibid.13.2–3.
90 Epiphanius, Panarion lxxiii.2.1. Apparently the council was hastily convened to coincide with the dedication of the church. As this was taking place at the end of winter, it would have been hard for bishops to attend. Thus, its attendees were bishops of sees near Ancyra, such as Eustathius of Sebasteia.
91 The statement is preserved in Epiphanius, Panarion lxxiii.2–11.
92 Contra Simonetti, ‘George’, 343, and Hanson, Search, 349. Hanson states that ‘George of Laodicea signed the statement issued afterwards, though he was not present at the council.’ George is not one of the signatories of the statement (see Epiphanius, Panarion lxxiii.11.11) nor is there any evidence for his subscription.
93 Sozomen, HE iv.13.4–14.7; Philostorgius, HE iv.8. On Basil's response to Aetius see Hanson, Search, 349–57, and Ayres, Nicaea, 149–53.
94 Kopecek, History, 173.
95 Philostorgius, HE iv.8.
96 Sozomen, HE iv.15.1–4. On this council see Kopecek, History, 172–6; Hanson, Search, 357–62; and Ayres, Nicaea, 152–3.
97 Gregory of Nyssa, Contra Eunomium i.37, ed. W. Jaeger, in Gregorii Nysseni opera, I: Contra Eunomium libri, I et II: pars prior: libri I et II (vulgo I et XII B), Leiden 1960. Gregory mentions that it was Athanasius of Ancyra, Basil's successor as bishop of Ancyra, who showed him George's letter on Aetius.
98 Basil of Caesarea says of Aetius that ‘I will not mention in what sort of customs he was reared from the beginning of his life and how, when he grew up, he intruded perniciously into the churches of God, lest I seem to focus on abusing him and to neglect the refutations’: Contra Eunomium i.1, ed. Sesboüé, Bernard, in Basile de Césarée, Contre Eunome, SC ccic, cccv, Paris 1982–3, i.144, lines 28–31Google Scholar, trans. DelCogliano, Mark and Radde-Gallwitz, Andrew, in St. Basil of Caesarea: Against Eunomius, Washington, DC 2011, 82Google Scholar. Basil's knowledge of Aetius' early life and his negative view of it may have come by way of George's letter.
99 See Philostorgius, HE iii.15; Socrates, HE ii.35.1–14.
100 Socrates, HE ii.39.2–4; Sozomen, HE iv.16.2–5; Theodoret, HE iv.16.
101 The Dated Creed is preserved in Athanasius, De synodis 8.3–7, and Socrates, HE ii.37.18–24. On the Dated Creed see Hanson, Search, 363–5, and Ayres, Nicaea, 158.
102 Basil of Ancyra's subscription verbosely attempts to endorse the Dated Creed by interpreting it in a Homoiousian way, yet without explicitly saying that the Son was like the Father in substance (κατ’ οὐσίαν), a phrase that the Creed had explicitly prohibited: Epiphanius, Panarion lxxiii.22.7–8.
103 On the date see Hanson, Search, 365–7, and Ayres, Nicaea, 158. The defence is preserved in Epiphanius, Panarion lxxiii.12.1–22.4. Before presenting the two extant Homoiousian documents, Epiphanius says at Panarion lxxiii.1.8, GCS xxxvii. 268, lines 27–9, that ‘Here I will insert the letter which each of them wrote: Basil wrote one, and George of Laodicea, together with Basil and those with him, wrote another.’ This means that George may not have been the only author of the defence. None the less, since Epiphanius seems to think of George at least as the primary author, and the letter consistently speaks in the first person singular, it is legitimate to refer to this as George's. I am not convinced by the arguments of Steenson, ‘Basil of Ancyra’, 212–14; Alfried Löhr, Winrich, Die Entstehung der homöischen und homöusianischen Kirchenpartien: Studien zur Synodalgeschichte des 4.Jahrhunderts, Witterschlick–Bonn 1986, 142, 237Google Scholar; and Morales, Xavier, La Théologie trinitaire d'Athanase d'Alexandrie, Paris 2006, 32–4Google Scholar, who deny that George is the author and ascribe the text solely to Basil of Ancyra: DelCogliano, Mark, ‘The literary corpus of George of Laodicea’, Vigiliae Christianae lxv (2011), 150–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
104 Hanson, Search, 366. See also Kopecek, History, 195–6, 200. See also Eleusius of Cyzicus' comments at the Council of Seleucia in Sozomen, HE iv.22.22.
105 On this council see Ayres, Nicaea, 161–4, and Hanson, Search, 371–80.
106 Socrates, HE ii.39; Sozomen, HE iv.22.
107 Socrates, HE ii.40.3–5; Sozomen, HE iv.22.11–12.
108 Hanson, Search, 380.
109 See DelCogliano, Mark, ‘The death of George of Laodicea’, JTS n.s. lx (2008), 181–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
110 Venables states this view most clearly and most erroneously: ‘At first an ardent admirer of the teaching of Arius, he subsequently joined the ranks of the semi-Arians, but seems ultimately, outstepping his original position, to have united with the Anomoeans, whose uncompromising opponent he had once been, and to have died professing their tenets’: ‘Georgius (3)’, 637. But this was the view of virtually all scholars before the twentieth century. See, for example, Johann Albert Fabricius and Gottlieb Christoph Harles (eds), Bibliotheca graeca, Hamburg 1804, ix.293: ‘modo Arianas partes, modo iterum adversarias Eunomianis Homoeusianorum sequutus est’. See also Norris, ‘George’, 460.
111 Loofs writes that ‘The new attitude of George after 358 can hardly be called a change of conviction since the homoiousian formulas may be traced back to the Christology of Alexander of Alexandria who influenced his youth’: ‘George of Laodicea’, 459. Loofs had said the same in his earlier article where he adds that ‘die Entwicklung G.s erscheint auch hier normal’: ‘Georg von Laodicea’, 540.